False, the Heartland data shows a rise of 2 deg per century which is nothing, not the 10 degrees that you and the IPCC(CP) shill for.

2 degrees per century is way faster than the average, and the actually disruptive results come from 5 degrees, not 10. The average is significantly less than 1 degree per century, and it's not a linear increase, but a fluctuation. You never see an entire millennia of .5 degree increases in average temperature every century. To see the past 150 years have the largest and fastest rate of change in temperature ever recorded in human history is pretty fucking alarming.

The planet doesn't seem to have a temperature change that dramatic without getting hit by a fucking mile wide asteroid.

No one said anywhere that it is the sun's luminescence that matters

Yes they have for the past decade. That's why so many were harping on "Sun Spot Activity" for so many years. It was literally the predominant anti-anthropogenic argument made as of only a few years ago. You can probably find some Bill O'Riley clips about it.

It's the 22 year magnetic cycle that changes the amount and energy of cosmic and solar radiation impacting the Earth's atmosphere, thus changing the cloud formation rates and altitudes.

That's actually even more silly. We have a magnetosphere for reason. The number of muon particles hitting the atmosphere isn't going to do shit. Changing the composition of your atmosphere by introducing massive amounts of carbon dioxide... does.